Date:   Sun, 16 Feb 2020 14:18:00 -0500
From:   Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
To:     linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz
Subject: [PATCH] mm, numa: fix bad pmd by atomically check for pmd_trans_huge when marking page tables prot_numa

From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
  A user reported a bug against a distribution kernel while running
  a proprietary workload described as "memory intensive that is not
  swapping" that is expected to apply to mainline kernels. The workload
  is read/write/modifying ranges of memory and checking the contents. They
  reported that within a few hours that a bad PMD would be reported followed
  by a memory corruption where expected data was all zeros.  A partial report
  of the bad PMD looked like

  [ 5195.338482] ../mm/pgtable-generic.c:33: bad pmd ffff8888157ba008(000002e0396009e2)
  [ 5195.341184] ------------[ cut here ]------------
  [ 5195.356880] kernel BUG at ../mm/pgtable-generic.c:35!
  ....
  [ 5195.410033] Call Trace:
  [ 5195.410471]  [<ffffffff811bc75d>] change_protection_range+0x7dd/0x930
  [ 5195.410716]  [<ffffffff811d4be8>] change_prot_numa+0x18/0x30
  [ 5195.410918]  [<ffffffff810adefe>] task_numa_work+0x1fe/0x310
  [ 5195.411200]  [<ffffffff81098322>] task_work_run+0x72/0x90
  [ 5195.411246]  [<ffffffff81077139>] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x91/0xc2
  [ 5195.411494]  [<ffffffff81003a51>] prepare_exit_to_usermode+0x31/0x40
  [ 5195.411739]  [<ffffffff815e56af>] retint_user+0x8/0x10

  Decoding revealed that the PMD was a valid prot_numa PMD and the bad PMD
  was a false detection. The bug does not trigger if automatic NUMA balancing
  or transparent huge pages is disabled.

  The bug is due a race in change_pmd_range between a pmd_trans_huge and
  pmd_nond_or_clear_bad check without any locks held. During the pmd_trans_huge
  check, a parallel protection update under lock can have cleared the PMD
  and filled it with a prot_numa entry between the transhuge check and the
  pmd_none_or_clear_bad check.

  While this could be fixed with heavy locking, it's only necessary to
  make a copy of the PMD on the stack during change_pmd_range and avoid
  races. A new helper is created for this as the check if quite subtle and the
  existing similar helpful is not suitable. This passed 154 hours of testing
  (usually triggers between 20 minutes and 24 hours) without detecting bad
  PMDs or corruption. A basic test of an autonuma-intensive workload showed
  no significant change in behaviour.

Although Mel withdrew the patch on the face of LKML comment https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/10/922
the race window aforementioned is still open, and we have reports of Linpack test reporting bad
residuals after the bad PMD warning is observed. In addition to that, bad rss-counter and
non-zero pgtables assertions are triggered on mm teardown for the task hitting the bad PMD.

 host kernel: mm/pgtable-generic.c:40: bad pmd 00000000b3152f68(8000000d2d2008e7)
 ....
 host kernel: BUG: Bad rss-counter state mm:00000000b583043d idx:1 val:512
 host kernel: BUG: non-zero pgtables_bytes on freeing mm: 4096

The issue is observed on a v4.18-based distribution kernel, but the race window is
expected to be applicable to mainline kernels, as well.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
---
 mm/mprotect.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
index 7a8e84f86831..9ea8cc0ab2fd 100644
--- a/mm/mprotect.c
+++ b/mm/mprotect.c
@@ -161,6 +161,31 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
 	return pages;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Used when setting automatic NUMA hinting protection where it is
+ * critical that a numa hinting PMD is not confused with a bad PMD.
+ */
+static inline int pmd_none_or_clear_bad_unless_trans_huge(pmd_t *pmd)
+{
+	pmd_t pmdval = pmd_read_atomic(pmd);
+
+	/* See pmd_none_or_trans_huge_or_clear_bad for info on barrier */
+#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
+	barrier();
+#endif
+
+	if (pmd_none(pmdval))
+		return 1;
+	if (pmd_trans_huge(pmdval))
+		return 0;
+	if (unlikely(pmd_bad(pmdval))) {
+		pmd_clear_bad(pmd);
+		return 1;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static inline unsigned long change_pmd_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 		pud_t *pud, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
 		pgprot_t newprot, int dirty_accountable, int prot_numa)
@@ -178,8 +203,17 @@ static inline unsigned long change_pmd_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 		unsigned long this_pages;
 
 		next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
-		if (!is_swap_pmd(*pmd) && !pmd_trans_huge(*pmd) && !pmd_devmap(*pmd)
-				&& pmd_none_or_clear_bad(pmd))
+
+		/*
+		 * Automatic NUMA balancing walks the tables with mmap_sem
+		 * held for read. It's possible a parallel update to occur
+		 * between pmd_trans_huge() and a pmd_none_or_clear_bad()
+		 * check leading to a false positive and clearing.
+		 * Hence, it's ecessary to atomically read the PMD value
+		 * for all the checks.
+		 */
+		if (!is_swap_pmd(*pmd) && !pmd_devmap(*pmd) &&
+		     pmd_none_or_clear_bad_unless_trans_huge(pmd))
 			goto next;
 
 		/* invoke the mmu notifier if the pmd is populated */
-- 
2.24.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists